Abstract: Cognitive processes such as perception, learning, memory and decision making play an important role in mate choice, foraging and many other behaviours. In this review, I summarize a few key ideas about animal cognition developed in a recent book (Shettleworth 1998, Cognition, Evolution and Behaviour) and briefly review some areas in which interdisciplinary research on animal cognition is currently proving especially productive. Cognition, broadly defined, includes all ways in which animals take in information through the senses, process, retain and decide to act on it. Studying animal cognition does not entail any particular position on whether or to what degree animals are conscious. Neither does it entail rejecting behaviourism in that one of the greatest challenges in studing animal cognition is to formulate clear behavioural criteria for inferring specific mental processes. Tests of whether or not apparently goal-directed behaviour is controlled by a representation of its goal, episodic-like memory in birds, and deceptive behaviour in monkeys provide examples. Functional modelling has been integrated with analyses of cognitive mechanisms in a number of areas, including studies of communication, models of how predator learning and attention affect the evolution of conspicuous and cryptic prey, tests of the relationship betweeen ecological demands on spatial cognition and brain evolution, and in research on social learning. Rather than a `new field' of cognitive ecology, such interdisciplinary research on animal cognition exemplifies a revival of interest in proximate mechanisms of behaviour.

Abstract: We conducted three experiments on social problem solving by chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes. In each experiment a subordinate and a dominant individual competed for food, which was placed in various ways on the subordinate's side of two opaque barriers. In some conditions dominants had not seen the food hidden, or food they had seen hidden was moved elsewhere when they were not watching (whereas in control conditions they saw the food being hidden or moved). At the same time, subordinates always saw the entire baiting procedure and could monitor the visual access of their dominant competitor as well. If subordinates were sensitive to what dominants did or did not see during baiting, they should have preferentially approached and retrieved the food that dominants had not seen hidden or moved. This is what they did in experiment 1 when dominants were either uninformed or misinformed about the food's location. In experiment 2 subordinates recognized, and adjusted their behaviour accordingly, when the dominant individual who witnessed the hiding was replaced with another dominant individual who had not witnessed it, thus demonstrating their ability to keep track of precisely who has witnessed what. In experiment 3 subordinates did not choose consistently between two pieces of hidden food, one of which dominants had seen hidden and one of which they had not seen hidden. However, their failure in this experiment was likely to be due to the changed nature of the competition under these circumstances and not to a failure of social-cognitive skills. These findings suggest that at least in some situations (i.e. competition with conspecifics) chimpanzees know what conspecifics have and have not seen (do and do not know), and that they use this information to devise effective social-cognitive strategies. Copyright 2001 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour.

Abstract: Seven experiments were conducted on four miniature pigs to determine: (1) whether the pigs can discriminate between people wearing the same coloured clothing; (2) what cues they rely on if they could discriminate. For 2 weeks before the experiments began, the pigs were conditioned in a Y-maze to receive raisins from the rewarder wearing dark blue coveralls. They were then given the opportunity to choose the rewarder or non-rewarder in these experiments. Each session consisted of 20 trials. Successful discrimination was that the pig chose the rewarder at least 15 times in 20 trials (P<0.05: by χ2-test). In Experiment 1, both rewarder and non-rewarder wore dark blue coveralls. By 20 sessions, all pigs successfully identified the rewarder. In Experiment 2: (1) both wore coveralls of the same new colours or (2) one of them wore coveralls of new colours. They significantly preferred the rewarder even though the rewarder and/or non-rewarder wore coveralls of new colours. In Experiment 3, both wore dark blue coveralls but olfactory cues were obscured and auditory cues were not given. The pigs were able to identify the rewarder successfully irrespective of changing auditory and olfactory cues. In Experiment 4, both wore dark blue coveralls but covered part of their face and body in different ways. The correct response rate decreased when a part of the face and the whole body of the rewarder and non-rewarder were covered. In Experiment 5, both wore dark blue coveralls and changed their apparent body size by shifting sitting position. The correct response rate increased as the difference in body size between the experimenters increased. In Experiment 6, the distance between the experimenters and the pig was increased by 30 cm increments. The correct response rate of each pig decreased as the experimenters receded from the pig, but performance varied among the pigs. In Experiment 7, the light intensity of the experimental room was reduced from 550 to 80 lx and then to 20 lx. The correct response rate of each pig decreased with the reduction in light intensity, but all the pigs discriminated the rewarder from the non-rewarder significantly even at 20 lx. In conclusion, the pigs were able to discriminate between people wearing coveralls of the same colour after sufficient reinforcement. These results indicate that pigs are capable of using visual cues to discriminate between people.

Abstract: This experiment examines the cues used by cattle to discriminate between people, particularly the role played by facial cues. We trained and tested eight Holstein cows 5 days each week for 2 months. For each cow, we used two people, a rewarder and a non-rewarder, of different size and dressed in overalls of the same colour. The operant chamber was a large box within which stood the two people. The cow could see, smell and touch each person. A lever was placed in front of each person. When the cow pushed the lever in front of the rewarder, it received 75 g of concentrate and nothing when it pushed on the other one. For each test session, the cows made 10 choices. The placement of the people was determined randomly according to the Gellerman series. The success criterion was defined as at least eight correct choices out of 10 trials for two consecutive sessions (binomial law P<0.003). During the shaping, seven cows out of eight learned to press the lever to obtain the food. The cows were then tested in a series of 10 trials with only the rewarder present. Seven out of seven cows succeeded in reaching the success criterion. In experiment 1, both the rewarder and the non-rewarder were present and standing upright at normal height and in full view of the cow. Five out of seven cows achieved the success criterion. In experiment 2, the cows could see only the faces of the two people. None of the cows were able to reach the success criterion. In experiment 3, both people were present standing up and wearing identical masks that completely covered their heads. Five cows out of five achieved the success criterion. In experiment 4, we changed the relative height of the people. Five cows out of five succeeded when the two people stood so they were of equal height but with their faces visible. However, no cows succeeded when the people were both of equal height and had their faces covered. This study suggests that cows seem to use multiple cues to discriminate between people. Cows appear able to use either body height or the face to discriminate between people but use of the face alone is more difficult when the cows cannot see the rest of the body.

Abstract: Group living can confer advantages to individuals, but it can also impose severe costs through resource competition. Kleptoparasitism is one example in which some individuals (joiners) can exploit the food discovered by other animals (finders). This type of social foraging has been modelled either as an information-sharing model or as a producer-scrounger game. An important variable in these models is the finder's advantage: the number of items obtained by the finder before the arrival of other individuals. In this study we describe how the spatial position and rank of individuals in a group of wild tufted capuchin monkeys affect their ability to discover and exploit new food sources. We also analyse the factors that affect the finder's share and the total amount of food obtained by the finder from a newly discovered resource. By placing platforms filled with bananas at novel locations in their home range, we show that animals in the leading edge of a foraging group have a higher probability of discovering new food sources than animals occupying other spatial positions. The alpha male and the alpha female, which tended to occupy central-forward positions, were able to monopolize newly discovered food sources and thus obtain a major share of them. The finder's share at the feeding platforms was smaller when there was more food on a platform, but increased with longer delays before the arrival of other individuals. The total amount of food obtained by the finder from the feeding platforms was larger when there was more food on the platform, when the finder was of higher social status, and when it took longer for other individuals to arrive. Animals can increase their finder's share and total amount consumed from a newly discovered resource by keeping large interindividual distances and by avoiding giving cues about the presence of food (such as food-associated vocalizations) to other animals.